Stein Interview w/ Beck (ductape needed)

[_RockHeaded]

Okay, I realize that all you liberals believe that conservatives are stupid and shouldn't be able to hold any opinions or I guess be allowed to state opinions outloud. Yeah sure it is the liberals who are supposed to be for free speech etc... What ever. I have a liberal friend who happens to like watching Glenn Beck, he thinks that he has very good points. So I guess maybe he isn't an extreme leftest which is in his favor. YES there are liberal teachers in colleges that do inforce their views upon students, and YES there happens to be one at the College of Southern Idaho whom teaches philosophy. Unfortunately this is a class you have to take. Unfortunately if you do not give liberal leftest answers on your quizes and tests you will be failed. And of course if you state your conservatives views during class you are chastised.

Just for the record, I didn't see anything wrong with the interview. I guess I am another sheep LOL.

Professors that "force" their opinions upon students?

Last I checked, nobody can force anyone to change their opinion. Even the most ardent, biased professor can only argue persistently and present his case. It is then up to the student to defend his or her opinion through logic and investigation.

If you are too stupid, intellectually inbred, or just plain Utarded to defend an opinion against a rationally based assault (regardless of the correctness or incorrectness of the viewpoint contained in this assault), then you probably shouldn't be attending college. Or holding opinions on subjects more complex than your preferred fast-food chain, for that matter.

I know many very intelligent conservatives who manage to defend their opinions successfully in academic and debate settings. This isn't a matter of conservative vs. liberal, it's a matter of intellectual honesty and pandering to the willfully ignorant.

Sorry for wanting to get a passing grade, maybe you never went to school and therefore you do not understand the importance of PASSING.

[_Trevor]

LOL well you obviously didn't read what I said. Here goes again. If one did not give leftist answers to quizes and tests one fails. You're right it is after all philosophy, according to liberal thinking in this case.

It is usually the safer course to answer in a manner that the teacher will best like, i.e., the one he or she tried to inculcate in you. Sure there are profs who are broadminded enough to look past your disagreement, but you have to keep in mind that his person spent 6 or more years in a PhD program to learn a helluva lot more about this stuff than you probably know (or at least to believe that he or she does know more). It stands to reason that, unless you have a particularly brilliant answer, they will prefer you to parrot their own view instead of providing a half-baked alternative.

As someone who has taught at the university level for a decade, I have a little experience in this area. I also like to think that I am big enough to recognize and reward good thinking that doesn't necessarily accord with my lectures.

[_Gadianton]

If one did not give leftist answers to quizes and tests one fails. You're right it is after all philosophy, according to liberal thinking in this case.

I don't know Trevor, I'm not buying it. I'd like Rockheaded to 1) give us the name of the philosophy course 2) give an example of a quiz question with the appropriate "leftist" answer and the unleftist answer that Rockheaded wanted to give.

[_Moniker]

I think people that have issues with higher education actually have issues with their point of view being challenged.

Of course they do if they are going to get failed because of it. You realize that you have to get a passing grade for the credit, right?

It's really difficult for me to consider what opinion would have someone fail a course in philosophy? You're going to have to be more specific, 'cause my skepticism is rearing up. :)

LOL well you obviously didn't read what I said. Here goes again. If one did not give leftist answers to quizes and tests one fails. You're right it is after all philosophy, according to liberal thinking in this case.

Well, I did read it, yet, I was really trying to think of something that would be on a philosophy quiz/test in a philosophy course that everyone had to take. I was thinking Intro to Logic as that is usually a requirement everyone takes regardless of major. From there I attempted to think how political ideology would really impact the test/quiz portion of the course.

[_Moniker]

If one did not give leftist answers to quizes and tests one fails. You're right it is after all philosophy, according to liberal thinking in this case.

I don't know Trevor, I'm not buying it. I'd like Rockheaded to 1) give us the name of the philosophy course 2) give an example of a quiz question with the appropriate "leftist" answer and the unleftist answer that Rockheaded wanted to give.

Jinx!

[_critic30]

I think Stein's critics here are being very disingenuous and petty. Read the context. He never said evolution or "Darwinism" should explain gravity or thermodynamics.

If you really cannot understand the import of his comments concerning these various laws of the universe, then it is you who is out of touch with the debate, and you really appear foolish bickering over your own ignorance with respect to what Stein was saying.

He refers to the "Darwinist establishment" that rejects any theistic explanation for any of the inexplicable mysteries of the universe. This isn't the same thing as saying "Darwinism" should explain gravity, the strong and weak nuclear forces, etc.

I think you guys are being ridiculous if you really believe Stein is so stupid as to think evolution has some fundamental connection with gravity. Is this all you can complain about, a straw man? He was simply pointing out that there are other scientific areas that point to God. It isn't all about evolution.

The Darwinist establishment is not only about Darwinism. In fact, Darwin himself would probably have nothing to do with it if he were alive today.

[_Gadianton]

Yes, exactly Moniker. Maybe it was a political philosophy class? But even then, I have a hard time imagining his situation. Now, what I have a very "easy" time imagining, is a Mormon thinking they are being discriminated against when in reality, the nature of the subject matter is unfortunately, not straight out of a Sunday School manual.

I remember a long time ago my dad telling me about this philosophy class he took where his teacher taught all kinds of stuff against the gospel and how he eventually had to bear testimony in front of the class and let his professor know *his* beliefs. I remember him telling this story on a few different occasions when I was a teenager. He got me interested at some point, and I just had to know what all these dark and treacherous ideas were his teacher was forcing on the class, and he told me he had the book for the class somewhere and would try to find it. Well, he found it. Guess what it was?

Will Durrant's "The Story of Philosophy"! lol

I had a mission comp too who was an utter fanatic, I was an inch away from demanding another comp or i'd just quit working. I got along very well with virtually anyone, and I'm not the only one who had a problem with this guy. He was a southerner, and as dogmatic as they come. I met him years after mission, and he mentioned a philosophy class he took that he was thrown out of. Just your general intro class, and he'd get up and tell the teacher he was wrong and bear testimony.

Some Mormons have a hard time separating the two worlds they live in.

[_Trevor]

Sweet Jebus, an apologist for Ben Stein. What next?

[Guest]

Not an apologist. I just think it is silly that nobody else has pointed out the obvious misunderstanding here.

No, Darwinism doesn't explain gravity, and no, Ben Stein doesn't think it should.

If you want to beat up on the guy, at least attack a position he actually holds. Otherwise, it just makes him appear to hold a position stronger than it really is.

But why should Dawkins be the only one with apologists?

[_Moniker]

I think Stein's critics here are being very disingenuous and petty. Read the context. He never said evolution or "Darwinism" should explain gravity or thermodynamics.

Well, perhaps you should reread the thread as I never said he said "evolution or Darwinism should explain gravity". I quoted what he did say in the OP:

"Darwinism can not explain gravity."

If you really cannot understand the import of his comments concerning these various laws of the universe, then it is you who is out of touch with the debate, and you really appear foolish bickering over your own ignorance with respect to what Stein was saying.

I understand that the comments on gravity, thermodynamics, and abiogenesis don't relate to Darwinism and he's creating strawmen.

He refers to the "Darwinist establishment" that rejects any theistic explanation for any of the inexplicable mysteries of the universe. This isn't the same thing as saying "Darwinism" should explain gravity, the strong and weak nuclear forces, etc.

I never said he said that Darwinism should explain gravity, the strong and weak nuclear forces. He's criticizing a particular scientific theory and saying that it can't do what it was never intended to do.

I think you guys are being ridiculous if you really believe Stein is so stupid as to think evolution has some fundamental connection with gravity. Is this all you can complain about, a straw man? He was simply pointing out that there are other scientific areas that point to God. It isn't all about evolution.

I actually think Stein doesn't think evolution has anything to do with gravity, yet, his statements are ridiculous on the matter. Instead of tackling evolution and pushing forward an alternative theory he is the one creating strawmen.

The Darwinist establishment is not only about Darwinism. In fact, Darwin himself would probably have nothing to do with it if he were alive today.

What precisely is the Darwinist establishment, how can I join, and must I pay tithes?